turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Napoleon III of France
The Maximilian I article says he was installed in 1864 so France could not have been hostile and recognized the CS as a consequence of US anger as this article says. ML4E 01:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) This problem is noted in the Inconsistencies page, actually. TR 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC) My point was that France was hostile prior to the appointment of Maximilian, probably because of the US application of the Monroe Doctrine. They saw an opportunity to weaken the US by supporting the CS and then in 1864 made Max emperor. I'll have to re-read the prelude again to see what it says but Lincoln could have been talking about Max’s predecessor. By the way, a definite date like 1864 might well be in the book so I would hesitate to change it to 1862 until I could confirm it. ML4E 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Yep, president. Nappy 3, DeGaulle, Doriot. I guess we have Presidents of France now if we want it. TR 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :Doriot wasn't an OTL President. Not sure if that matters, but since the larger office-holder categories get split between OTL and ATL, I'm not sure whether we should consider viable a category which requires the combination thereof to meet the minimum. ::Never stopped us before. TR 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :::We've never had such advanced guidelines on which categories were appropriate before. Argumentum ad antiquatem, bee-atch! Turtle Fan 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ::::What advanced guidelines? "Large categories that can be broken up logically shall be so broken up?" TR 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :::::We've never before cared much about OTL/ATL distinctions. Categories are now coming to be much more narrowly and precisely defined. "French Presidents" would cover everything, but categories of "President of X" unqualified are rapidly going out of fashion. Most of the ones we have are just sitting around waiting to be subdivided. Also, I worry people would assume it was either OTL or ATL and might become confused by the lack of consistency with similar categories. :::::This should all become a moot point when Hitler's War gets released, and that happy day is not far off. Turtle Fan 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :By the way, the article should mention over which French Republic Nappy presided. There have been--Is it five now? I'd put that info in myself but I'm a bit chagrined to admit I don't recall offhand. Turtle Fan 04:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ::Second. I'll edit. TR 07:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :::Well done. Turtle Fan 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) 191 France Something that's always bothered me a bit, and working with the Mexican emperors has brought it up to the surface. We are absolutely certain Nappy here was on the throne during the WoS. We are absolutely certain that soon-to-be-Germany attacked the French as in OTL and defeated them as in same. Did the Germans still kick their asses around the block, or was it a milder victory? (Couldn't have been too mild, they still subjected the French to a harsh peace.) We know that as of CCH there hadn't been a French monarch, be he king or emperor, in quite some time, so I'm assuming regime change in 1871, again as in OTL. :Recent reviews for other articles suggest same victory as in OTL, and regime change. TR 14:28, October 25, 2010 (UTC) And yet, in HFR, which is in 1881, France behaves EXACTLY as one would expect the Second Empire to behave, and not at all much like one would expect the Third Republic to behave. Including with regard to Mexico, whose relationship with France in HFR is still what it had been when Max I was first installed. Turtle Fan 02:30, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :I suggest the CS is the real cement in that relationship. TR 14:28, October 25, 2010 (UTC) ::In Mexico, perhaps; perhaps the Sonora Purchase was a way for two French allies to develop ties with one another. Certainly by GWI the CS is their big dog (despite some mention in B that now that the CS Army had been disarmed they might be subject to Mexican raids). By HFR? I don't know. The CS was still getting its footing, and the French would surely still have had an interest in milking Mexico for its mineral deposits. ::In the prematurely-born Entente Cordial in general, the French went to war on the CS's behalf officially, but their hearts weren't in it. Remember Longstreet bitching that they didn't give a shit? Turtle Fan 19:40, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, Republican France behaved pretty much like an asshole already in the OTL 1882 European intervention in Egypt (which gets a pair of surprising nods in HFR), although the only one who really benefitted from that in the end was Britain. Much like in Egypt, France jumps in in HFR to secure its source of money, but at this stage she doesn't really care much about the CSA or the Mexican emperor(s) per se.WastedTime 09:38, May 24, 2011 (UTC) ::::That's true. I'd forgotten all about this issue, thanks for the reminder. Turtle Fan 16:33, May 24, 2011 (UTC)